We may not see many more Obama superdelegate endorsements this week except perhaps to counter any endorsements for Hillary. The Obama campaign, in banking their future endorsements, has apparently decided that they need an orchestrated flood of supers to force the opposition out of the race.

Drummond is the 318.5th superdelegate to endorse Obama, who is now 48 delegates away from capturing the Democratic nomination.

Drummond said...

After much thought and prayer, I feel the time has come for me to endorse a presidential candidate. This isn't a decision I have taken lightly but after listening, watching and reading about both candidates, I feel that Senator Obama is the candidate that can lead this Country in the direction I would like to see us go.

I would think Obama would want another 9-10 superdelegate endorsements this week to ensure that he can surpass the 2026 mark by the June 3 primaries. Seems it would be better to achieve the 2026 mark through the voting process rather than achieve the number on June 4 through superdelegate endorsements.

If he could muster 50 superdelegates before Saturday, I wonder if it would make sense to achieve the 2026 before the RBC meets?

NBC NEWS has updated the delegate counts in Alaska and Colorado, giving Obama one more and Clinton one less in each state. In Alaska, Obama picks up a split of 10-3 (instead of 9-4 after he got the two statewide PLEOs at convention). In Colorado, Obama gets a split of 36-19 (instead of 35-20). Obama's pledged delegate lead is now upped to 149, his superdelegate lead moves to 34, and his overall lead stands at a combined 195 (including the 12 Edwards delegates).

The Clinton Campaign has just released the following:Virgin Islands automatic delegate Kevin Rodriquez announced his support for Hillary Clinton today. Rodriquez is a member of the Democratic National Committee.

Problem is he switched from Clinton to Obama on 5/10 saying:While I have great respect for Senator Clinton, today I am announcing my support for Barack Obama. Senator Obama has brought a new generation and energy into the democratic process and the Democratic Party. He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and Independents across this country, whether we live on the mainland or an island. Senator Obama’s judgment to lead, courage to tell the truth and commitment to working men and women make him the best candidate to lead this country forward.

“While both Democratic candidates will be good for America and good for Guam, Senator Obama is my choice. I believe he is the best candidate to deliver on the promise that is America, for all of America,” he said.

What is the true deal with Kevin Rodriguez? If he really did switch back to Clinton, he gets my vote for "Worst Superdelegate in the world"...even worse than Pilar Lujan....Somehow I am thinking that maybe this is a case of the Clintons giving this guy so many harrassing phone calls- to the point where he said "no mas" and told the Clintons he would vote for her just so they stopped calling him. I think this might be like in Seinfeld when either George or Jerry tried to break up with their girlfriend and she wouldn't let him...

Rodriguez (VI) moved back to Clinton. Pangelinan (GU) added for Obama.

Rodriguez is based on a Clinton Press Release. All media reports are based on this same Press Release. We have no reason to doubt the Press Release, but needless to say we will be keeping a close eye on Mr. Rodriguez.

The link is not broken. I just tested it. I would bring one thing to everybody's attention: The Obama campaign has NOT put out a press release saying Rodriguez has not switched. That alone tells us something.

Leah - because Mark Halperin at The Page is a major bigwig in political reporting. Politico also reported it. And the Clinton campaign sent out a press release on it. If you think the Obama campaign is not aware of it, you're not giving their press office much credit.

Could the Clinton Press Release be in error? Of course. But we have always considered campaign press releases reliable sources for endorsements, so until we hear from Rodriguez or the Obama campaign that the the claim is false, it stands.

I think we need to watch Obama-website to see how they update their number. nothing so far that indicates this switch did not happen, but I would say this is a strange move, nothing special has happen`t the last 14 day to defend a switch back. This is the second Clinton endorsement in a short while, which a find strange. Lujan (GU) said she would support the winner in Guam (Obama), the victory was small, but i found that strange. This switch is even stranger, I really hope we`ll have a quote from Rodriguez because I`ll appreciate a good explanation. I think you really need to explain yourself when you switch two times in such a short while, without any proper news.

"I'm very proud of Barack Obama. I think he's doing a great job," Rodriquez said. "I'm honored as an African-American to have him in the position he is in, but I feel Hillary is still the better candidate to lead the party to victory in November."

On Feb. 18, Rodriquez told The St. Croix Source that he was supporting Clinton because "she’s a better candidate."

"I'm very proud of Barack Obama. I think he's doing a great job," Rodriquez said. "I'm honored as an African-American to have him in the position he is in, but I feel Hillary is still the better candidate to lead the party to victory in November."

Pat Waak (CO) endorse Obama according to Halperin. Interesting since Waak has said that she would remain neutral until after the last primary. Anybody think it is a coincidence that Obama gets this endorsement today when he is speaking in CO? They know how to announce their superdelegates at the right time and place!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama picked up the support of a superdelegate from Colorado Wednesday as he inched closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination.

Colorado Democratic party chair Pat Waak endorsed Obama,

...

Waak said in a statement released by Obama's campaign. "In the state of Colorado his message of hope has attracted young people, new Democrats and Independent voters who will make up a winning coalition this fall."

sorry for saying the link to the rodriguez report was broken when it wasn't. Just my stupid connection =)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Obama count. They still have Washington State listed as 53/25, which is actually impossible--only 52/26 or 54/24 are even possible outcomes. By which I mean to say I think that once they put a number up, or count something, they are rather loath to change it downwards, even if it actually *does* change downwards. Or something.

I mean in one sense that's reasonable since they're pretty much going to win anyway, at this point.

On Kevin Rodriquez from VI. I would advocate moving him to uncommitted or back to Obama until we can find an actual current quote. That release appears to be a one sentence blurb with no context, date or explanation. As has been posted here, there are numerous sources with his quote for changing to Obama on May 11th:

“While I have great respect for Senator Clinton, today I am announcing my support for Barack Obama. Senator Obama has brought a new generation and energy into the democratic process and the Democratic Party. He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and Independents across this country, whether we live on the mainland or an island. Senator Obama’s judgment to lead, courage to tell the truth and commitment to working men and women make him the best candidate to lead this country forward.” http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGBY2J

His switch was the one that put Obama in the superdelegate lead. It is hard to believe that a well orchestrated and publicized Clinton to Obama flip would flip back without explanation or fanfare. A flip should require at least the amount of evidence to list someone in the first place.

Obama-site has 318,5 superdelegates, the same as this site. But I`m not sure if the Obama site has registered the one from Guam, OR and CO. I think Obama site has 2 more superdelegates than DCW for a while, if the numbers are updated at the Obama site and the difference increase to 3, we will know that they also count the VI guy for Obama. If the difference is 2 after the updates, Obama-camp informally confirms the switch.

On Rodriquez: Something is fishy. Click on the link to his name listed by this site to Time as the source--http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp-release-on-virgin-islands-superdelegate/

Then, click on "return to the Page." and you will be taken here: http://thepage.time.com/.

There is NO mention of the Rodriquez flip flop flip. In fact, the tally on that page is Obama 2, Clinton 0 for the day. If the source for your source does not hold up, there is no basis for the change.

A final note, although his name can be found with both a "q" and "g", it appears "q" is correct.

Matt, I imagine you are just waiting to digest things on Rodriquez. One more thing to consider, there is no date on the "The Page" link." That is odd. Click around on The Page" Everything has two dates, today's and the day it is posted--except this press release. The sourse does not mention a re-flip-flop and is not dated. Not Reliable!

That confirms that Rodriquez have switched. Obama website had 2 more superdelegates than DCW yesterday, they`ve added Waak, Smith and Pangelinan and they still have a difference of two. That means Rodriquez have been removed.

But, I still would like an explanation from Rodriquez, because this switch is suspect, espcially since he switched from Clinton to Obama just 2 weeks ago, nothing special has happen`t since that day.

Kevin Rodriguez, a delegate from St. Thomas, has switched again? to Clinton? We voted 89.6% for Obama here in our February caucus. Something is up. I just called him and the message was the phone is no longer in service. I called a more prominent Democrat who believes he has left the island and recalled a flap when he left about not relinquishing his voter registration card. Anyone know his whereabouts? I reported this to the DNC but haven't heard back. If he doesn't live in the Territory, how can he cast a delegate vote for us? If he does still live here, he should not be flying in the face of the voters.

(May 28) Kevin Rodriquez switched his vote back to Hillary Clinton, while under a hail of sniper fire in Tortola. “I did this to make sure all the votes count, except for Obama supporters in Michigan—they shouldn’t count at all.”

Oreo, I still don't think the justification for Rodriquez has been made. I think it would be prudent to put him as uncommitted or back to Obama unless Clinton web site actually posts the "press release." The reference to "the page" is suspect in as much as 1)it is the only page on that web site that does not have a created date (click around and you will see for yourself); 2) there is no reference to that article on the index of articles The Page for the last several days; 3) there is not one single verification anyone has been able to find here about this supposed re-flip; and 4) it just belies common sense--why, and for what political gain, would this delegate switch back to Clinton at this point of the campaign. In light of all of this, and in the ABSENCE OF A QUOTE, the only sensible thing to do is prudently wait as you generally do and put him in uncommitted or back in the Obama column.

Again, thank you guys for all the hard work. The constant upgrades to the site are great. On another note, Obama has hit the 200 delegate lead. That may be psychologically important.

Robert in MN: it's really pretty simple. DCW has always considered confirmation from a campaign to be sufficient. They got confirmation from the Clinton campaign. Yeah, it's weird, but for now it meets the standards.

They can always change it back. Also, I've pored through the DNC rules and bylaws and I can't find anything about the DCW count being subsituted for the traditional roll call at the convention.

AP has spoken to Kevin Rodriquez:"I decided to switch because that's my right," he told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "I don't want to say why I decided. It's not about me ... It's about America and what's best for America."http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD90UUTOO0

And what is best for America next week? That he didn't answer. I'm out of words...

All - I was going to write this before the AP article came out, so I'll write it anyway. We have a consistent set of standards, and sticking to them has proven to be useful to us. Candidate press releases are considered reliable sources.

We got a clear Press Release from the Clinton campaign, and they subsequently confirmed it. It was not a mistake, or a joke.

And most importantly, it was never refuted by Rodriquez or the Obama campaign. This was the key for me. In the absence of any evidence that reliably refutes the story, it has to stand. All the arguments presented to move him back to Uncommitted were circumstantial - and none met our standards.

It doesn't matter how many press reports linked to it. The fact that it wasn't on the Clinton web site was interesting, but not enough to take it back. (We've seen other press releases not make it to their web site).

RobertinMN - your focus on one web site misses the bigger picture. Rodriquez was reported today on MSNBC, ABC and other places. And the fact that it makes no sense - don't forget - this is Democratic Party politics!

GpCote - The Obama campaign does not list their superdelegates, so we certainly can't use their numbers to move or not move a specific superdelegate.

Honestly - I did expect this to be a mistake of some sort - either on Rodriquez's part or the Clinton campaign's part. But with every passing hour that the Obama campaign didn't put out a press release about it, it became more likely that it was true.

And speaking of sticking to our standards, what happens when two equally reliable (in our eyes) sources give different results? We go with the more recent one. Keep this in mind, and check back in a couple of hours, as a prominent Democrat will be moving from one category to another....

Matt and Oreo--You all where right and I was wrong. I see now (in retrospect) why the Clinton camp did not release this rather important news. Kevin Rodriquez is a nut case. Think of it-The 1st SD to switch to her side and they can't use it

Don't fall for Matt's trick! He's just guessing that Rodriquez will change his mind some time before midnight tonight. As for prominent, well let's just say that this guy is a lot more prominent today than he's ever been before.

"I don't have to say why I changed my mind. I don't have to say that Hillary promised me Secretary of State. Whoops, never mind, this was all off the record, right?"

Well, believe it or not, there will be no endorsement change tonight. My apologies for setting expectations - I should know better.

In the interest of full disclosure, the super in question was Former Speaker Tom Foley. (well, he was prominent!). We have him for Clinton based on this release. Local Washington papers are calling him Uncommitted based on this article, which says:

* Some lists have Foley, who served as ambassador to Japan during the Clinton Administration, as a Clinton superdelegate, but he hasn’t made a public endorsement.

After reviewing it again, we decided that the "lack" of a public endorsement was not enough to override a Press Release (there are those darn press releases again), so Speaker Foley is staying where he is.

Please look at the post again. Nowhere does it say who should be Obama's VP. It says, "Who should get the Democratic VP Slot?". You are welcome to post who you think should be Clinton's VP on the thread.

vicki did I say it was happening on this thread NOOOOOOO. I just don't want to go to the vp thread because I think it's rude and premature that's all. I do know what this thread is for I don't need for you to tell me. jean

Clinton delegates Charles Manatt (CA), Steven Grossman (MA), Debra DeLee (MA) & Terry McAuliffe (VA) and Obama delegates Joe Andrew (IN), David Wilhelm (OH) & Paul Kirk (MA) are all listed as "DNC" when they ought to be listed as "DPL". None of them are on the DNC currently, but they are all former DNC chairs.

As far as I can tell, you have it right on the "by position" sidebar, but it's improperly noted on the candidate lists.

Also, two Texas superdelegates, Eddie Bernice Johnson and Yvonne Davis are listed as "DNC Rep". Ms. Johnson is both a congresswoman and a DNC member, but so are seven other superdelegates who aren't listed as "DNC Rep". Ms. Davis is not a congresswoman -- she's a state legislator (but she is a DNC member).

Also, four Clinton superdelegates and eight Obama superdelegates ARE DNC members but they have no designation. Theresa Hunkin is an example.

I think you were right about switching Tom Foley. "Supporting" a candidate (term from that press release) doesn't equate casting a convention vote for the candidate, as we have seen a number of SD's claim they will vote based on different criteria, i.e., how their state votes rather than personal choice. Plus, there is more than one news article claiming his undecidedness, including these three from Seattle.

Lisa - I've talked to the reporter at the Seattle Times, and all their reports of Foley's non-endorsement are based on the same article that I cited above. Foley has not made an active move to declare himself Uncommitted, so we don't have enough to negate the declaration of support on the Clinton web site.

There are several superdelegates who are in the same position. They probably don`t support Clinton, but they are not switching until they feel it is necessary. So, I don`t think Foley or others officially have switched to uncomitted or Obama and I think your policy are correct. If Foley or other feel they need to "push" Clinton out of the race (that means she is talking about the convention etc after next tuesday), they will switch and they will not do it silently.

So I think putting Foley for Clinton until he says something else, is a good move.

Here is an interesting snippet from my local newspaper, the Statesman Journal. Although not really an endorsement, the statement reveals that Sen. Ron Wyden acknowledges that Obama will win the nomination: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/UPDATE/80529006 Those who have remained mum about their choice include U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and state party Vice Chairman Frank Dixon. Wyden told KDRV-TV in Medford on Wednesday that he expects Obama to wrap up the presidential nomination shortly after Montana and South Dakota hold their last-in-the-nation primaries June 3. But Wyden, whose chief of staff ran Clinton's campaign in the state, said he prefers to stay neutral for now. . . . [It is my experience that the Statesman Journal only makes their articles available for a few days, so any link to this article will fail eventually]

I don't find Clyburn waiting to Tuesday to be that strange. I would not be surprised to see it postponed until a little bit later in the day to reduce its impact.

Right now, I am seeing 4 or 5 categories of unpledged delegates out there.

Category 1 -- Delegates who are ready to commit and don't see a need to wait for the RBC meeting. (Most of these folks have already announced, but we may see a handful more before noon on Saturday).

Category 2 -- Those delegates waiting for the RBC meeting but who want the final decision to be made by the voters (Most of these folks will announce on Sunday, Monday, or before 6 on Tuesday. I would suspect most of these will be Obama supporters).

Category 3 -- Delegates who want to wait for the voting to be done before endorsing. Some of these will be party leaders who feel that they should be neutral while folks are still voting. Others would like to be among those last delegates necessary to clinch the nomination for a candidate (Most of these folks will be announcing between June 4 and June 24th).

Category 4 -- Delegates who are truly undecided and want to wait and see what develops.

Category 5 -- Delegates who don't want to tick anyone off and want to wait until one candidate clinches and the other concedes. (Mostly elected officials in close districts who may need distance from the nominee in any case.)

Pelosi AND Reid on the JOB!!May 29, 2008, 4:39 pmDemocratic Leaders Lean on SuperdelegatesBy CARL HULSEWASHINGTON - Hoping to bring the Democratic presidential nomination fight to an end, party leaders are intensifying their efforts to encourage remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make their choice public by the middle of next week.

In an interview Thursday on a San Francisco talk radio station, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he had spoken with Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier in the day, and they had agreed to take steps to avoid a contest that extends into the convention in August.

Senator Harry Reid on KGO Senator Reid discusses the Democratic primary. Full interview via KGO.“We all are going to urge our folks next week to make a decision very quickly,” said Mr. Reid, on station KGO. He said he had also spoken with party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday night.

Mr. Reid’s comments came after Ms. Pelosi told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday that she would intercede in the contest if it were not concluded by the end of June to bring it to a close.

Both Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid have remained publicly neutral in the contest and have said that the primaries should run their course. But with the last contests set for Tuesday, the two top lawmakers are evidently ready to exercise their influence with the approximately 200 members of Congress and the party elite who have yet to make their preference known publicly. Party officials say both Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi are also calling uncommitted superdelegates to press them for a resolution.

Traveling in California to promote his new memoir, Mr. Reid also told an audience in Los Angeles that the nominee would be known by Wednesday. He told others that a sufficient number of superdelegates are prepared to put Senator Barack Obama over the top quickly after Tuesday’s voting is finished. Both Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have also said they agree that the delegates from Michigan and Florida should get some voice at the convention as well.

The Congressional leaders have said previously that the contest has been good for the party given the attention to the campaign and the registration of new voters, but Ms. Pelosi said to the newspaper. “We cannot take this fight to the convention.”

"Today, I am proud to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. I believe Senator Obama is the candidate who can best provide the leadership and change Texans desire. Too many Texas families find themselves unable to make ends meet, much less save and invest in the future, due to Republican policies that burden the middle class and divide Americans. Senator Obama has the skill and ability to unite Americans from all walks of life and put our country back on the right track."

"I am also grateful for Senator Obama's commitment to help build the Texas Democratic Party. Senator Obama and his campaign understand something that Texans have known for at least a couple of years - that when Democratic candidates invest the time and resources necessary, Texas Democrats have the numbers to compete and win across every region of our great state. We made progress in 2006, and in 2008, the Texas Democratic Party is more energized, better organized, and we are poised to make significant gains this fall."

"This was a difficult decision to make, because I have great respect for Senator Clinton and her Texas supporters. I sincerely appreciate how hard she worked in Texas to deliver a message that resonated with so many voters, and I commend her campaign and the important role she played in the historic participation our Party is experiencing this year. As always, the Texas Democratic Party will conduct party business with absolute fairness and respect for every Democrat, without regard to whom one supports in the primary or convention, and I am confident Texas Democrats will unite and work together side by side to win this November."

Betty Richie is a member of "The Pelosi Club", is she not? She could be waiting for Saturday's meeting to determine if Sen. Obama has officially reached a majority of the final pledged delegate count...

AUSTIN — Texas Democratic Party chairman Boyd Richie endorsed Barack Obama for president Thursday as the final primaries and Texas' state party convention approach.

Richie's wife, Democratic National Committee member Betty Richie, also endorsed Obama. They are two of Texas' 32 superdelegates and were among the few remaining who had not committed to either Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Until recently, Boyd Richie had said he had no plans to make an endorsement before the state convention June 6-7, where Clinton and Obama delegates are expected to battle again over pledged caucus delegates.

"I believe Senator Obama is the candidate who can best provide the leadership and change Texans desire," Richie said in a statement issued by the party. "Senator Obama has the skill and ability to unite Americans from all walks of life and put our country back on the right track."

Richie also said he's grateful for the Illinois senator's commitment to help build the state party.

Texas Democrats have been working on a comeback since Republicans took over all statewide offices in 1998, when George W. Bush was governor.

Richie said Democrats made progress in Texas in 2006 and that this year the state party is more energized and better organized, putting it in position to make more gains this fall.

"This was a difficult decision to make, because I have great respect for Senator Clinton and her Texas supporters. I sincerely appreciate how hard she worked in Texas to deliver a message that resonated with so many voters," he said.

Clinton narrowly won the state's primary March 4, but Obama has prevailed in two rounds of caucuses that also determine pledged delegates from Texas. The final division of those caucus delegates comes next week at the state convention in Austin.

Betty Richie, in a statement issued from her husband's campaign office, said Obama will help rural Texas.

Doc, you're right -- mea culpa I forgot to include the add-ons as a category. Probably because in my own mind I treat them as a slight variation on the pledged delegates -- something being fought over in the convention process (although I know that sometimes the fight is about local politics not national politics) in several of the states. BTW, I thought the last date for selection was June 21st.

Sometime yesterday you seem to have lost one Obama SD from your totals on the table in the upper left corner. I've been tracking you day by day since January, and this is the first time I've seen this. The numbers I currently have (noon EST on May 30) are Obama 324.5, Clinton 281.5; see my spreadsheet at http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pT_z8d3gptJ8U9nBteEAWXg&hl=en for a complete daily rundown.

More on Kevin Rodriquez and his switch: The chairman of the U.S. Virgin Islands' Democratic Party, Cecil Benjamin said this after the switch: "At this desperate crunch time, anything should be expected, especially when political persuasions, promises and offers are made," said Cecil Benjamin, adding that he had no proof that Rodriquez was being pressured to change his vote.

TX DNC Superdelegate Denise Johnson is listed on the Burnt Orange site as being an Obama supporter. They list three sources - one which quotes her as having voted for Obama "on Tuesday" but none with an endorsement. Has anyone seen an actual endorsement from her?

Jaya - That is a very good question. I am an Obama supporter and I have never heard that she had endorsed Obama, but when I looked up her name, the first thing I came to was one of those laundry lists on a site linked to a site that said on June 15, 2007, 50 SDs endorsed Clinton, and it included her on the list.

Denise Johnson (is listed here on DCW) in the Pelosi Club. She has not formally endorsed Obama - therefore is still on the uncommitted list here on DCW. Once someone finds an Official Endorsement or a quote then she can be moved to one of the candidates lists.

I found all kinds of lists and sites that said that she endorsed Clinton, including a post from one of the bloggers on the Obama site asking people to call her and switch, but none of the things that I found was newer than the induction into the Pelosi Club. I would say that is where she belongs. Those lists that I found were almost a year old, six months at the earliest. She went to Pelosi Club on 4/6.

She said she voted for Mr. Obama on Tuesday and that she'll probably cast her convention vote for the candidate who wins more pledged delegates – very likely, Mr. Obama.http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/030708dnpolsuperdelegates.f1dec3.html

I agree with Miranda and Leah, having read the 3 sources on Burnt Orange (and realizing that Denise Johnson was originally a Clinton superdelegate). My original query was if anyone had seen a more definitive endorsement that gave those three sources backbone. She is decidedly not alone at fence straddling.

Paul, I know at least two supers from The Young Democrats of America went for Obama. The HuffPost reported awhile back that Clinton's backer Haim Saban had offered the YDA $1 million if they'd back Clinton. Haim Saban is the same guy who was one of the signers of that letter to Nancy Pelosi.

As a woman, I hope all the supers from the The National Federation of Democratic Women endorse Obama, that would be so fitting a rejection of her bogus sexism claims as well as her claim to represent women.

I was looking at the superdelegate endorsements by gender, because the Clinton supporters are taking the predictable it's the male hierarchy that's doing her in theme.

The box on the side lists for Governors, 11 for Clinton and 14 for Obama. But if I go thru the list of endorsers, looking for those labled Gov., I find 12 for each. Any idea where things go wrong? Here's the list I extracted, separated also by gender of endorsers:

I've put together this spreadsheet with information about the trivia question I posted last night.

Superdelegates are split right down the middle in the delegations for Democratic Women, Young Democrats and Democratic Seniors. If they feel a need to reflect the feelings of their constituency they show it by cancelling out each other's votes! The one group that DOES seem to care about representing their people is the College Democrats who BOTH endorsed Barack Obama.

Look at this video for an example of superdelegates who trouble themselves to represent their constituents.

It doesn't say he is going to endorse Obama... it says now he can decide if he wants to.

Until now, I’ve felt that our Latino recruitment project and my role on the rules committee were important enough to warrant remaining neutral. Now that we have dealt with Florida and Michigan, I am finally free to decide whether to follow my original instincts and support Obama after all.

Jcaesar91- is calling the race officially. Forget about Tim Russert or Chuck Tood- I am calling it. Obama needs 64 delegates- and he is projected to get around 41 from the remaining primaries + around 19 add ons- and with the 6 from the Pelosi club- it is officially over...

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THOSE CAREER POLITICIANS THAT ARE PRESSURING DELEGATES AND SUPER DELEGATES TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF WHY THIS PRESSURE EXISTS, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT IT IS SO AN INEXPERIENCED PRESIDENT CAN BE VOTED INTO OFFICE FOR THE CAREER POLITICIANS TO USE AS THEIR PUPPET. THANK YOU DELEGATES...THANK YOU CAREER POLITICIANS, AND THANK YOU TO ALL THAT CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE PIED PIPER TO THE DOOM OF OUR ONCE GREAT NATION.

For folks talking about pressure on unpledged delegates, they need to take a step back and get some historical perspective. I know that it has been over 20 years since a race has gone to the end of the primaries. However, in both 1976 and 1984, you had similar conversations taking place. The message from the leadership then and now was/is "We need a nominee. We don't care who you choose to support, but you need to make a decision." The message from the leading candidate in all three circumstances was/is "I am going to be the nominee. I would like you with me before I clinch." The message from the leading candidate's staff to the unpledged was/is, "The nominee needs x delegates to clinch. He will remember who was willing to stand with him before he clinched and who waited until after it was over before joining the team."

Barack Obama picked up a national delegate from Maine on Sunday as the Democratic State Convention closed.more stories like this

Delegates ratified the party chairman's nomination of Gwethalyn Phillips of Bangor, a former state party official, as an "unpledged add-on" delegate as specified in party rules. But Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Arden Manning said Phillips was recognized as an active Obama supporter.